[Gral. Stamelin]

Read this:

The issue of Iraq's attempts to acquire uranium from abroad was not an element underpinning the judgment reached by most intelligence agencies that Iraq was reconstitutin its nuclear weapons program- White house spokesman Michael Anton

Bush is finally admitting that there were no massive destruction weapons at all in Iraq, and by that, he is admitting that there was no threat to his country. And by that, and let's not forget when he actually said it, he is admitting that he only wanted Iraq's oil.

Now, I hope many of his supporters see what this man's intentions are all about.

[Proctor]

Um, sorry, he's admitting that Hussein did not attempt to buy any Uranium from Niger. And nothing more.

edit: It's Niger, not Nigeria as I originally posted.

[Secession]

Although I would like to string Bush up, it doesn't even say that in the quote. All it says is that Iraq's attempt to buy Uranium didn't influence the decision. It says nothing about WMD.

The BBC says -

Now it has come out that nearly a year before the State of the Union speech, the US Government had sent a senior former diplomat, Joseph C Wilson IV, to Niger to make on-the-spot inquiries.

Mr Wilson broke cover this week to reveal that he had told the US Government that "it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had taken place."

The British government telling lies? I don't believe it.

[Paco]

We have a rather complicated situation here.
After many years of inspections, Iraq was negative on holding WMD.
Bush's statement of the supposed transaction (buying uranium from Niger) was one of the biggest arguments on starting the war.
After killing many civilians and destroying historical spots, now they say "Oops! there was no such transaction"
If it werent for the IAEA and the UNSCOM reports, saying that there werent any WMD in Iraq, there would be some reason to beleive that they had something to hide.
Anyway, since the start this war was far from legitimate, according to some policies, a country can attack another as a pre emptitive strike.. well. now we prove that Iraq was not a threat to US or UK interests (as they didnt have any weapons that could cause terror).
They also skipped the UN Security Council authority, hence showing that anyone with the enough power can easily skip the international community and do whatever he wants.
While some people would say that the UN should somehow punish the US and the UK for the devastation they caused in Iraqi soil, unfortunately, they cant
The only organ allowed to issue punishments in the UN is the (again) Security Council, and even if 13 of the 15 countries agreed on that point, still the everlasting ghost, the veto, would appear..

Comfortable situation for the Bush and Blair administrations, eh?

[Boondock Saint]

Bush's statement of the supposed transaction (buying uranium from Niger) was one of the biggest arguments on starting the war.

For who? I hear this alot in the media, in truth I was here in the US ... the people that Bush really wanted to sell it to ... the people that he needed to sell it to ... the nuclear issue was low on the list. The alleged purchase from Niger was just one issue on a long list of issues and it was hardly given priority.

The fact that pieces of a nuclear reactor were brought to the US's attention by an Iraqi scientist does, to some extent, give proof that Saddam had every intent on returning to the previous nuclear research once they were no longer in the spot light. These pieces alone proves that Iraq was in violation of the treaty.

The focus on Iraq was about bio/chem and possible nukes. Bio and chem were the ones most talked about.

Anyway, since the start this war was far from legitimate, according to some policies, a country can attack another as a pre emptitive strike..

While I disagree with your take on the nuke situation, here I find myself in somewhat agreement. Pre-emptive strikes isnt exactly solid footing for declaring war ... imo.

now we prove that Iraq was not a threat to US or UK

That has hardly been proven in my view. The lack of WMD proves only that the US/UK havent found them.

While some people would say that the UN should somehow punish the US and the UK for the devastation they caused in Iraqi soil, unfortunately, they cant
The only organ allowed to issue punishments in the UN is the (again) Security Council, and even if 13 of the 15 countries agreed on that point, still the everlasting ghost, the veto, would appear..

The veto is hardly what is stopping any disciplinary action against the US. I would say the lack of testicular fortitude was more a major reason.

[Gral. Stamelin]

Do you seriuosly think, (not including the quotes) that a country so poor like Iraq is a threat against super-power states like your dear US of UK?
Ppppleeeze!

[Boondock Saint]

Do you seriuosly think, (not including the quotes) that a country so poor like Iraq is a threat against super-power states like your dear US of UK?
Ppppleeeze!

Do you seriously think a group of rag tag 'freedom fighters' are a threat to the US? Please ...

For that matter do you really think a group of guerrilla fighters in a South East Asian country, armed with AK-47's could possibly fight the entire might of the US military to a stand still? Please ...

Do you honestly think a group of tossed together fighters armed with AK-47's and RPG's could defeat the Soviet military? Please ...

Do you honestly think a disorganized militia could shock the US army, shoot down a few helicopters and force the US to leave its nation with its tail between its legs? Please ...

Do you honestly think a small group of rebels in Chechnya could possibly force the Russian military into a retreat even though Grozny was effectively destroyed? Please ...

Of course a little nation could never be a threat to a larger nation ... I a mean history is full of examples where the big guy always wins without any real challenge from the little guy ... right? ... ... right?

[jaakko]

Do you seriously think a group of rag tag 'freedom fighters' are a threat to the US? Please ...

They never were... If the US octopus wants to keep its tentacles in Iraq, better accept atleast some of them getting cut off or severely wounded. I understand the pretexts used for this war, they're always used. Just don't expect the peoples of the targeted nations to believe them. If someone believes them, it's the people of USA. And that's what the pretexts are good for.

[Boondock Saint]

@Jaakko

Sorry ... I think we got a little crossed with our messages ... I wasnt talking about Iraqi groups, civilians or what not ... I was talking about Al Qaida and their ilk. The same folks who did the bombing in Bali. A loose group of 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters' depending on who you are.

[briansmith]

The fact that pieces of a nuclear reactor were brought to the US's attention by an Iraqi scientist does, to some extent, give proof that Saddam had every intent on returning to the previous nuclear research once they were no longer in the spot light. These pieces alone proves that Iraq was in violation of the treaty.

Actually, it was just a few pieces for a centrifuge. Talk to some nuclear engineering professionals and they'll tell you that you don't bury high-tech nuclear-grade bearings in the ground for future use. You bury them to dispose of them.

Besides, these pieces were put in the ground in 1991, and were not dug up in the mean time, so how can you claim that it's proof that Saddam Hussein "had every intent on returning to the previous nuclear research"?

It's rather ridiculous, really.

[Boondock Saint]

@T

- Wait ... you bury pieces of a nuclear reactor in a scientists garden to dispose of them? Come on ... you don't honestly buy that do you? Are you trying to tell me that of all the places in Iraq that one could bury these pieces, the garden of an Iraqi scientist was teh only place they could bury it? And are you honestly saying that of all the ways to 'dispose' of the pieces the best idea that Saddam and his boys could think of was to bury them in a vegetable garden?

To quote you ...

It's rather ridiculous, really.

Besides, these pieces were put in the ground in 1991, and were not dug up in the mean time, so how can you claim that it's proof that Saddam Hussein "had every intent on returning to the previous nuclear research"?

I agree, they were not dug up in the mean time ... because the spot light was still on them. I was suggesting that perhaps once the spot light was off them, that they would then dig up whatever they buried.[/quote]

[Proctor]

Maybe, but you need to have balls bigger than your brain to try and bring sanctions on the United States. I think the world leaders just saw it was a losing battle, and worked to repair relations.

[Paco]

Maybe, but you need to have balls bigger than your brain to try and bring sanctions on the United States. I think the world leaders just saw it was a losing battle, and worked to repair relations.

So, you are saying that anyone with the economic and military power to get over everyone can do whatever they want.. um.. I thought ethic still existed

[Boondock Saint]

So, you are saying that anyone with the economic and military power to get over everyone can do whatever they want.. um.. I thought ethic still existed

I would like to give my view on what Proctor said and your take on it Paco.

I don't think what Proctor is saying is that it's ok for such a power to force its will on others, what I think he is saying is that the 'others' would be only hurting themselves or placing themselves in a potentially dangerous position when something alot more peaceful would perhaps further their own cause.

[CasX]

Yeah. Sadly, I don't see a lot of ethics in international relations. It seems to be based much more on power - look at the US shrugging off the UN (to the dismay of most countries in the world) when they wanted to invade Iraq.

[Proctor]

You guys have got it spot on. There's nothing I'd like to see more than the veto removed from the Security Council. Well, apart from a democraticly elected Security Council.

[Gral. Stamelin]

this is for Boondock
The way I place my messages does not concerns you, ok?
Please show repect. I have never mocked your opinion, so don't mock mines.
Besides, yes, the "freedom fighters", wheter they are strong or not, are freedom fighters against total nonsense anti-life imperialism, of the USA, who throughout history has being enthusiastic about smashing other countries for a few coins.
It is an outrage to humanitiy, and all the people that supported that, are assasins, and although I know you support evil just because you think it can be justified, the people of the world shall be protected against thos cruel intentions.

[Paco]

You guys have got it spot on. There's nothing I'd like to see more than the veto removed from the Security Council. Well, apart from a democraticly elected Security Council.

A veto of a veto... umh.. rather... lucridious..
The veto is (duh) unvetoable and unstoppable, thats why its the most powerful diplomatic tool within the UN Security Council
Now, for a democraticaly elected SC.. umh.. that idea wouldnt work either, the G5 would move their influences and take countries that would benefit them into it (and, as a matter of fact, most of the non permanent members were elected for that purpose)

[Proctor]

A veto of a veto... umh.. rather... lucridious..

Eh? That's not what I said. I said that the veto should be removed. And seeing as the veto is only for the Security Council, not the General Assembly where such a change would be decided on, it is entirely possible.

As for G5 (I thought it was G8?) nations just voting for nations that would represent their interests, I don't have a problem with that. Isn't that how democracy is supposed to work anyway?

[Boondock Saint]

this is for Boondock
The way I place my messages does not concerns you, ok?

What are you talking about?

Please show repect. I have never mocked your opinion, so don't mock mines.

If you could point out where I 'mocked' your opinion I would surely be intesrest, but I cannot find where I 'mocked' your opinion.

Besides, yes, the "freedom fighters", wheter they are strong or not, are freedom fighters against total nonsense anti-life imperialism, of the USA, who throughout history has being enthusiastic about smashing other countries for a few coins.

That's fine by me if thats your opinion. I have a different opinion ... unless of course my having a different opinion is mocking your opinion ... then I have no opinion ... as I wouldnt want to mock you. (Hint, NOW I am mocking you)

It is an outrage to humanitiy, and all the people that supported that, are assasins, and although I know you support evil just because you think it can be justified, the people of the world shall be protected against thos cruel intentions.

Everyone who supported the war in Iraq is an assassin? WOW thats makes ALOT of people assassins ...

Who is going to protect the world? Just out of curiosity ... or is asking you to explain your opinion mocking you? Just so I know not to mock you anymore ... cause I wouldnt want to be considered mocking you ...

No seriously though, I never mocked your initial post, I gave what I consider a well thought out response to your intial idea.

Does anyone else see me mocking his initial post with my initial response?